• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Ruling: Public TV, radio can run political ads

"We'll be right back to All Things Considered right after this message from Joe Kennedy III
for Congress"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-fcc-advertising-banbre83b171-20120412,0,2889250.story

>>By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the Federal Communications Commission violated the First Amendment's free speech clause by blocking public broadcasters from running political and public issue ads. The court said the ban was over broad and that lifting it would not threaten to undermine the educational nature of public broadcast stations. It upheld a ban on ads for goods and services on behalf of for-profit companies.
 
Sounds like a good way to alienate half of your donating audience either way. Not all listeners to public radio are Democrats either...

If a station is smart, they will forgo the short term gain and look at the long term effects of putting political ads on.

This is such a different animal than commercial radio; this is where you are appealing directly to your audience for support. Piss off someone with an ad, cough er, underwriting support from a candidate they don't like and decide to forgo that $500 a year donation, and you will begin to have a problem. Or lose 200 $250 a year supporters...

If I were the GM of a public station, I would "just say no". Not worth the hassle and backlash.

If they accept that, then the penis enhancement pills are right around the corner. Imagine: "This American Life brought to you with support from Libido MaxExplosionSuperLong, with more information available at bigpecker.com. Support also comes from Mitt Romney for President."
 
WNTIRadio said:
Sounds like a good way to alienate half of your donating audience either way. Not all listeners to public radio are Democrats either...

If a station is smart, they will forgo the short term gain and look at the long term effects of putting political ads on.

This is such a different animal than commercial radio; this is where you are appealing directly to your audience for support. Piss off someone with an ad, cough er, underwriting support from a candidate they don't like and decide to forgo that $500 a year donation, and you will begin to have a problem. Or lose 200 $250 a year supporters...

If I were the GM of a public station, I would "just say no". Not worth the hassle and backlash.

If they accept that, then the penis enhancement pills are right around the corner. Imagine: "This American Life brought to you with support from Libido MaxExplosionSuperLong, with more information available at bigpecker.com. Support also comes from Mitt Romney for President."

Here's the question though... can public radios refuse to run underwriting announcements from political candidates? Commercial broadcast stations can only refuse to air candidate's spots in very specific cases. I'm wondering if there are any similar political season rules for non-commercial stations?
 
Public stations don't have to run underwriting announcements, as they are really "acknowledgements of donations" to the station/organization. There are many non-comms that don't do any underwriting at all.

Let's say you have a religious station and the pro-choice group wants to underwrite... they can say "no, keep your donation and we won't run an underwriting spot". I think that will apply for the political "spots" as well.
 
I kind of wondered if a Fairness Doctrine revival (I know, it isn't happening) would force, say,
a religious outlet to put on pro-choice folks they'd tend to disagree with. It should be like
a newspaper: print or say what you want and the govt. shouldn't enforce "fairness".

Agreed about the political ads, though I did notice that WRKO was running ads from Dem./liberal
candidates in the past even though they tend to be conservative. If Liz Warren's money is green...
Up to them to either take the ads, or not.

>>If I were the GM of a public station, I would "just say no". Not worth the hassle and backlash.

True, that could well happen, but if a station is hard enough up for money...The T took down
booze ads but maybe they'll consider taking them again...

>>then the penis enhancement pills are right around the corner

Ha...btw don't forget WJIB is tech. a commercial station but Bob B. doesn't want to run ads be it for patent medicines, penis enlargement, or whatever. He solicits voluntary donations from his
listeners.

>>they'll have to accept ads from both parties, just as commercial stations do?

Not sure if they "have to". There was, maybe is, an equal time rule--they have to offer time
to the other candidate.
True story: IIRC, Ch 56 was not allowed to run any Ronald Reagan movies during his '80
campaign for prez as they'd have to offer equal time to other candidates. So when election
night was over they had a "Ron Till Dawn" film fest...
 
raccoonradio said:
Agreed about the political ads, though I did notice that WRKO was running ads from Dem./liberal
candidates in the past even though they tend to be conservative. If Liz Warren's money is green...
Up to them to either take the ads, or not.

Good thing you're not my communications lawyer... ;)

Candidates for federal office cannot be refused the purchase of airtime from any commercial station, and the station must sell the time at "lowest unit rate" and cannot restrict the content of the ad in any way, even if the ad would otherwise violate FCC content guidelines.

This applies only to federal office, and only to ad buys by the candidates themselves, not to PACs or SuperPACs or political parties.

Even Bob Bittner would have to sell spot time if he were directly approached by a candidate for House, Senate or President.

It's not yet clear (at least to me) if the rules would work the same way...if this ruling from the Ninth Circuit stands on appeal.

My gut tells me that the vast majority of public broadcasters don't have any desire at all to get involved in the morass of political advertising, nor do commercial broadcasters want to lose any of that massive revenue stream. I have a strong hunch that there will be an appeal, and that most establishment public broadcasters will be opposed to running political ads. The plaintiff in this case, KMTP, is an outlier in the public broadcasting world - a small independent TV station that leases out most of its time to international broadcasters and is not a PBS member. I don't think it speaks for most of the public broadcasting universe...but we'll see.
 
Remember that you had the explosion of WWF-style talk radio when the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated.

It essentially meant that these hosts could just make up anything and they would not be held accountable or challenged.
 
You can bet there's an angle, especially being reported in the Chicago Tribune.
 
Remember that you had the explosion of WWF-style talk radio when the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated.

It essentially meant that these hosts could just make up anything and they would not be held accountable or challenged.



Yep, you certainly can't depend on the marketplace to hold people accountable. Just ask Imus, Limbaugh, Beck, Schultz, Dan Rather, Peter Arnet.........

Regards,
TSB
 
TSBench said:
Remember that you had the explosion of WWF-style talk radio when the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated.

It essentially meant that these hosts could just make up anything and they would not be held accountable or challenged.



Yep, you certainly can't depend on the marketplace to hold people accountable. Just ask Imus, Limbaugh, Beck, Schultz, Dan Rather, Peter Arnet.........

Regards,
TSB


Yes, in extreme, dramatic or famous cases like those you mentioned were involved in, a public outcry might give them some temporary turbulence or even get them fired, but I am talking about all those little everyday pieces of flat out lies that I heard from just about every talk show person on the air. Phony stats.....quotes that people never said......you name it. And if it is supposed to be YOUR quote (and it isn't) or a phony piece of info about you (eg: you supposedly failed college 40 years ago), good luck trying to get equal time to respond on their show. So the lie gets accepted by their audience and there is nothing that you can do about it.
 
Yes, in extreme, dramatic or famous cases like those you mentioned were involved in, a public outcry might give them some temporary turbulence or even get them fired, but I am talking about all those little everyday pieces of flat out lies that I heard from just about every talk show person on the air

So what? Do you understand what the 'Fairness Doctrine' was? It wasn't the 'Truth' doctrine (as if such a thing was possible.) Trust me on this-----the folks who wish the return of the "Fairness Doctrine' are not interested in fairness or the expansion of free speech. Hows about you figure out for yourself what you believe, without having some bureaucrat protecting your feelings from being hurt.

Enforce your own 'truth' doctrine using your own rules. In day when you can Google up 3 million hits on making cinnamon rolls, I bet you can find out if a quote is legitmate or if someone really went to Cornell all by yourself. And probably in less time than it took you to complain about those dern talk show hosts who tried to BS you.

The Fairness Doctrine is championed by agenda-driven folks who think you're not smart enough to sort things out for yourself. If you agree with them, they're right.

Regards,
TSB
 
TSBench said:
Yes, in extreme, dramatic or famous cases like those you mentioned were involved in, a public outcry might give them some temporary turbulence or even get them fired, but I am talking about all those little everyday pieces of flat out lies that I heard from just about every talk show person on the air

So what? Do you understand what the 'Fairness Doctrine' was? It wasn't the 'Truth' doctrine (as if such a thing was possible.) Trust me on this-----the folks who wish the return of the "Fairness Doctrine' are not interested in fairness or the expansion of free speech. Hows about you figure out for yourself what you believe, without having some bureaucrat protecting your feelings from being hurt.

Enforce your own 'truth' doctrine using your own rules. In day when you can Google up 3 million hits on making cinnamon rolls, I bet you can find out if a quote is legitmate or if someone really went to Cornell all by yourself. And probably in less time than it took you to complain about those dern talk show hosts who tried to BS you.

The Fairness Doctrine is championed by agenda-driven folks who think you're not smart enough to sort things out for yourself. If you agree with them, they're right.

Regards,
TSB


Look, I'm not pushing for the return of the Fairness Doctrine per se. I am just saying that we swung from one extreme to the other and --coupled with the general lack of concern from today's broadcast ownership-- ushered in a new era of irresponsibility whereby these hosts can exist.

Here's an example: A station that I know of has a typical "bad boy" morning show. At one point, the host made a remark about a grocery store near the station being run by "Muslims". He ranted about them, how they are rude, etc etc. Then he said something like "and I am sure they are terrorists". The next day, the owner of the store arrived to front window smashed and the words "terrorist go home" spray painted on his wall.

The owner called the morning show to explain that he is Lebanese and a Christian! The host refused to put him on. He then called the GM, and the GM told him "hey, that's life....go ahead a sue us, we've got eight floors of lawyers".

The newspaper carried a little story on the back page. For whatever reason, the store is now gone.

Again...listen...I am not advocating pointless government control.

But you must admit, in this "anything goes" world of radio today, what can you do about some morning show punk attacking you by name and disrupting your life and you have no recourse but to go to the papers and/or file an expensive lawsuit?
 
I'm not pushing for the return of the Fairness Doctrine per se.

Of course not. Just something like it, as soon as you figure out what it is.

I am just saying that we swung from one extreme to the other and

What extremes? In 60 years we’ve gone from maybe two dozen opinion outlets to thousands of them, and getting your opinion in front of an audience is easier than ever. You think this is a bad thing? Opinion journalism is better now than ever before in history. I have a feeling that your definition of ‘extreme’ is ‘something you disagree with.’

--coupled with the general lack of concern from today's broadcast ownership-- ushered in a new era of irresponsibility whereby these hosts can exist.

How so? Have any specific examples, or is this just your gut feeling. Do you really think owners and groups don’t care if a host says something actionable?
Talk show hosts give opinions, it is their brand. As Limbaugh once said when asked about his not taking many callers, “this show is about what I think, not what you think.”


Here's an example: A station that I know of has a typical "bad boy" morning show.

Ummm….you think we need a federal law against air talent being assh*les? We have some, they are called slander and libel statutes.

By the way, what station, what morning show, and when did this supposedly happen? Throw in the city and state while you’re at it. Thanks.

At one point, the host made a remark about a grocery store near the station being run by "Muslims". He ranted about them, how they are rude, etc etc. Then he said something like "and I am sure they are terrorists". The next day, the owner of the store arrived to front window smashed and the words "terrorist go home" spray painted on his wall.

Of course. Just like in the movies. No Koran burning? You should have started with “Once upon a time…” This is the kind of story that makes CAIR think they've died and gone to heaven.

The owner called the morning show to explain that he is Lebanese and a Christian! The host refused to put him on. He then called the GM, and the GM told him "hey, that's life....go ahead a sue us, we've got eight floors of lawyers".

I bet you think GMs actually talk like that. You left out the part about how the GM called the station owner and said “I’m going to blow a million bucks defending a suit which we can’t win brought by some towelhead whose business was destroyed by our morning guy. The legal fees, settlement, and nationwide bad press, not to mention the pissed off Muslims and Christians, and the bad will in the local business community, will destroy us. On the bright side, the station building would make a nice Kinkos.

Perhaps you mean that the GM though that lawsuits are decided based on who has the most floors of lawyers. If this had actually happened, that store owner would have had every legal heavyweight from Gerry Spence to Harvey Silverglate standing in line to take it for free. I’ll give you a heads up….stations HATE to be sued when it is going to make them look bad.

The newspaper carried a little story on the back page. For whatever reason, the store is now gone.

I bet. Like dust in the wind. What paper carried that story on its back page (which is actually a prime location, ask anyone trying to buy a backpage ad.) If this story was real, it would have made the media column of the NY Times.

Again...listen...I am not advocating pointless government control.

Since the Fairness Doctrine is a cure for which there is no known disease, pointless government control is the only kind.

But you must admit, in this "anything goes" world of radio today, what can you do about some morning show punk attacking you by name and disrupting your life and you have no recourse but to go to the papers and/or file an expensive lawsuit?

But those would be the only options even if the Fairness Doctrine was in force. So what is your point, other than you don’t understand the topic?

A station will fall over itself trying to avoid both the bad ink and the expensive lawsuit (which will cost the plaintiff nothing.) I know you think that this is how it really have played out under your fabricated fairy tale but you would be wrong. Life doesn’t work like that in the radio biz.

I look forward to the cites. Tracking them down will give this old retired geezer something to do. Thanks in advance.

Regards,
TSB
 
Same thing happens in small market music radio if you get a bad apple, who decides to latch onto somebody and not let go. Of course it is not the same as politics per se, but people who know better usually find out the real actions behind the irresponsibility. It has nothing to do with the person(s) being attacked, but thefts or other illegal conduct within the station, which involves use of the station by the perpetrator, who doesn't represent the brand, as it were, even on remotes, but self-promotion without regard for the brand.
 
TSBench said:
Trust me on this-----the folks who wish the return of the "Fairness Doctrine' are not interested in fairness or the expansion of free speech.

Let's say your town needs money, so the board of selectmen decide to put a billboard on top of the town hall. But since they are all Democrats, they decide they will never accept ads from any Republican candidates, but only from Democrats. They tell Republican objectors that there are plenty of other billboards around, and they can pick up the phone and call Clear Channel any time. Now I would argue that this billboard belongs to the people of the town, and it's not right that those they have entrusted with running it should make it conform to their personal political views.

In the same way, the airwaves belong to the public, and it's not fair that those entrusted with the use of them -- that is, broadcasters -- should be allowed to restrict them to only one side of a controversial political or social issue. Hence the need for the Fairness Doctrine or something like it.
 
Next you'll get the govt to regulate contents of newspapers. We need "fairness" after all...

>>the airwaves belong to the public

Licenses are assigned to broadcasters ranging from corporations to mom and pop outlets
to colleges/public. You want format regulation too? Canada has that I think. Oh, too many stations
of a certain format...the govt should step in. Big nanny state fascism. Only what some call
"objectionable views" are, to the other side, "speaking truth to power".
 
4CX1000A said:
the airwaves belong to the public...

This is one of those urban legends that seems to have a life of its own. Nowhere in the Communications Act or any FCC regulation does it say that the "airwaves belong to the public." And if you think they do, march in to your local radio station and demand to be put on the air. You, after all, are a member of the public, and they're your airwaves.

Cue the crickets.
 
Now I would argue that this billboard belongs to the people of the town, and it's not right that those they have entrusted with running it should make it conform to their personal political views.

And I would argue that this is just a nonsense scenario put out by someone scrambling to come up with a real world example and failing. I could come up with unlimited reasons to why this is a non-starter, but even you don't see a point to that.

In the same way, the airwaves belong to the public,


In sort of the same way the public 'owns' the Interstate Highway System, or government buildings, etc etc.

and it's not fair that those entrusted with the use of them -- that is, broadcasters -- should be allowed to restrict them to only one side of a controversial political or social issue. Hence the need for the Fairness Doctrine or something like it.

This is a common misconception by people who aren't familiar with the actual 1927 legislation. The authors of the 1927 act are on the record stating that it was NOT about actual public ownership and control of the spectrum.

But, if you are into reductio ad absurdum arguments, try this one. Why would a Fairness Doctrine as you envision it not apply to every station, since you seem to think we own all of them? Why only talk stations? Since jazz is a niche format, can I insist that Raccoon add glamrock to his playlist? Make rap stations play Mozart? How about religious broadcasters having to give airtime to atheists. There is a reason stations are programmed the way they are and that includes talk stations. Talk stations are programmed around a specific ideological base (Phil Boyce has written about this often on other boards) because that is where the audience is. The effective result of insisting on the breaking of these formats would be to destroy the stations and programs involved. Which is exactly the goal of the folks espousing the return of the Fairness Doctrine to talk radio.

Regards,
TSB
 
TSBench said:
Since jazz is a niche format, can I insist that Raccoon add glamrock to his playlist? Make rap stations play Mozart?

was in Lakewood NJ a year ago. every single freq between 88.1 and 91.9 were Jazz88, in varying signal strengths. i wonder who decided that portion of the spectrum would be dedicated to jazz (and the same jazz on every station no less). was it a public vote?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom